Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with low back pain in primary and secondary care settings in Southern Denmark.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with acute or chronic low back pain across all health care settings treating this condition.Design and setting: Concurrent prospective survey registration of all consecutive consultations regarding low back pain at general practitioners, chiropractors, physiotherapists, and the secondary care spine centre in Southern Denmark. SUBJECTS: Patients ≥16 years of age with low back pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Demographic characteristics, symptoms, and clinical findings were registered and descriptively analysed. Pearson's chi-square tested differences between the populations in the four settings. Multiple logistic regression assessed the odds of consulting specific settings, and t-test assessed differences between patients attending for a first and later consultation. RESULTS: Thirty-six general practitioners, 44 chiropractors, 74 physiotherapists, and 35 secondary care Spine Centre personnel provided information on 5645 consultations, including 1462 first-visit consultations. The patients differed significantly across the settings. Patients at the Spine Centre had the most severe symptoms and signs and were most often on sick leave. Compared to the other populations, the chiropractor population was younger, whereas the physiotherapist population was older, more often females, and had prolonged symptoms. In general practice, first-time consultations were with milder cases while patients who attended for a second or later consultation had the worst symptoms, findings, and risk of sick leave compared to the other primary care settings. CONCLUSION: The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with low back pain differ considerably across the health care settings treating them.KEY POINTSThe study describes the symptoms and clinical findings of patients with low back pain consulting the Danish health care system in all its settings.Patients with chiropractors were youngest, while those with physiotherapists were the oldest and most frequently female.First consultations in general practice were generally with the least symptomatic patients while those returning for a subsequent consultation had more severe disease including more sick leave compared to patients in the other primary care settings.Our findings call for caution when generalizing between health care settings for patients with low back pain.

Low back pain in primary care: a description of 1250 patients with low back pain in danish general and chiropractic practice.

Study Design. Baseline description of a multicenter cohort study. Objective. To describe patients with low back pain (LBP) in both chiropractic and general practice in Denmark. Background. To optimize standards of care in the primary healthcare sector, detailed knowledge of the patient populations in different settings is needed. In Denmark, most LBP-patients access primary healthcare through chiropractic or general practice. Methods. Chiropractors and general practitioners recruited adult patients seeking care for LBP. Extensive baseline questionnaires were obtained and descriptive analyses presented separately for general and chiropractic practice patients, Mann-Whitney rank sum test and Pearson's chi-square test, were used to test for differences between the two populations. Results. Questionnaires were returned from 934 patients in chiropractic practice and 319 patients from general practice. Four out of five patients had had previous episodes, one-fourth were on sick leave, and the LBP considerably limited daily activities. The general practice patients were slightly older and less educated, more often females, and generally worse on all disease-related parameters than chiropractic patients. All differences were statistically significant. Conclusions. LBP in primary care was recurrent, causing sick leave and activity limitations. There were clear differences between the chiropractic and general practice populations in this study.

A multifaceted intervention according to the Audit Project Odense method improved secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No single quality improvement instrument has proved consistently effective, but multifaceted interventions are believed to have the greatest impact. However, only little is known regarding what combinations are likely to be successful. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention strategy combining GP registrations, outreach visits and feedback, targeting secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease in general practice. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial including 28 GPs in Ringkjøbing County, Denmark. Half of the GPs received outreach visits and feedback on their prescribing of heart disease drugs. Evaluation was based on registration of consultations with patients suffering from ischemic heart disease. RESULTS: The intervention had a statistically significant impact on prescribing of lipid lowering drugs [odds ratio 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 2.53] and acetylsalicylic acid (odds ratio 2.54; 95% CI 1.21 to 5.31). CONCLUSION: An intervention strategy combining outreach visits, feedback and GP registrations is a promising way of improving the quality of preventive treatment in general practice.